Are you talking about the amount inside "Cafeteria Plan" section on your W2? If so, the plan does not really mean "cafeteria" but it is under section 125 tax code...
It still doesn't make sense... If a "large passenger vehicle" never has passengers on at any time, why would the vehicle be bought in the first place? People buy "large passenger cars" on purpose. It is, however, very rare to buy them just to "show off." Besides, "vast majority" is still a lot more than 50% in total. The word "never" is too exaggerate to me still. If you said "most of the time," I would feel much more comfortable with it.
You are talking as if AI field is widely spread to general level in public. When I am talking about AI, I mean real AI, not a silly chat box (Siri-liked) crap, simple minded automation, or mined data analysis tools.
There is a possibility that the bubble will burst before the real AI technology arrives to general public, and the reason of the burst could easily be caused by the insanely growth of number of crappy apps. Good apps (with small number of developers) will stay, but most of app developers will be out of jobs.
The believe in limitation of hardware is a different point of view, but I still see that it is not going to stop the burst. Yes, higher capacity of hardware could open up new ways of apps, but at the same time it would encourage more crappy apps. The point of bubble burst is the quality of apps, not what usefulness (and not crappy) apps can do./p.
I agreed for the point of charging him, but the sentence he got is outrageous especially considering his position. Thinking whatever decision he made he would be f***ed, he chose the way he believed it would be the least damage -- go to jail. Sadly, politic of law enforcement comes in play and cost him even longer jail time than those who actually did the illegal activities. I wish they could find a better way to use his craftsmanship in a legal way...
they'll notify you when someone is going to buy a domain that uses your trademark on one of these new vanity gTLDs and you'll have the chance to contest the purchase (ie, buy it yourself) or give up all future claims.
Yes, but you (owner of the trademark) still have to do the work. What they (ICANN) do is to watch if anyone else is going to buy similar domain to your trademark which is somewhat an extension to what they are doing. The trademark owner really has to do the work to stop/deter the purchase (owner of the intellectual property must enforce his/her own IP).
Also even though someone else has bought a domain name with your trademark and used it to make money, you could still sue for damages (if there is any) without needing to know it in advance. One problem I am seeing is that how would one determine whether the domain name bought by someone else is violating your trademark. From the USPTO ( http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp ), you may challenge those who use your trademark in the country where your trademark has been registered. If someone registered the domain name in a country where your trademark has not been registered but sells products (online) in the country your trade mark is registered, what can you do? I am not so sure you can really stop the domain name purchase this way...
In other words, they just want free money every year with their little afford to do the work for you. Is it really worth it?
I think in this case (and many other cases), the legislation includes false negative. You may need to compare the benefit and loss of the result to understand that "probably" or "maybe" is OK to be based on.
The benefit would be that accidents caused by distraction of the glass would be reduced (if at least some people follows the law). The loss (false negative) is that there are people, who would not be distracted by the glass, would not be allowed to use the glass. Now, from my opinion, the value of loss from accidents caused by the glass is more than the value of loss from not allowing responsible people to use the glass because the loss is involved both the one who is distracted and the innocents (people/properties) that are unlucky involved in the accident. It would be wise to close the barn door before you lose a horse.
Reading your answer makes me think a bit differently (to keep them away from public). It may sound like a movie plot. Do you think it is possible to revive some species from extinction and that could simultaneously revive some serious/unknown diseases with it? Or those revived species become a new host for some diseases that in turn mutate to different diseases that resist the current medication? And if it is and the diseases spread out into the wild (from whatever reason), would it really be worthwhile reviving the extinct species? I understand that the project is for good reasons. I am just a bit paranoid a bit because you only need one wacko to turn the good to bad. Even though It is extremely unlikely, never say it is impossible...
By the way, to clarify my own post. What my intention is to ask the poster to do a little more research before referring about something that is far from the fact. It could come back and bite him/her. Yes, a lot of things are much cheaper in China and/or India than in the U.S., but that does not mean "everything" is cheaper. That's a dangerous assumption.
can I buy a car directly from China or India? I want to pay exactly what they pay, no surcharges.
I suggest that you or anyone who lives in the U.S. wouldn't want to do this. Do you know how much does the same car model cost in those countries? You would be surprised because the price is not correlated to their cost of living...
It doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Who knows when Google actually "apply the rule" of dot & no dot to their web mail. My friend recently showed me his emails and some of those do not belong to him. He actually know that the person is living in another city and use the email to register for some clubs or certificates. Nothing illegal but it's been for years and still going on. So my assumption from this is that there are some people who have been left when Google has not applied this "dot" rule. These people still have their email address messed up and have no idea what they can do.
I think you don't get the point of the article. I believe the quoted paragraph below (from the article) is what the whole point of the article.
Given the data, they concluded that social scientists could not possibly have picked a worse population from which to draw broad generalizations. Researchers had been doing the equivalent of studying penguins while believing that they were learning insights applicable to all birds.
So it means that many social studies were done using only one kind of samples (westerners), but their analysis is used to represent the whole population (in the world). If a study is done using only sample from western regions, the study should not be used widely as the "base" of all humanities but the similar region/culture. That's all.
I live out here in the sticks. Damned near half the county uses boosters, because, well, we have to. Between the abundance of mountains and the twisty roads, it's a given that if you want a signal, you get a booster.
That's why you need to register your device to your provider.
Anyhow, I do not understand or like the new FCC rule. The reason "so these devices won’t cause interference to wireless networks" does not work for me. Yes, there are some who abuse the device, but they should not come out with this "general" rule that affects those who need it (such as you). They should do more investigation rather than make their job easier by setting up a new rule. Too lazy, I would think.
Someone got killed in a backyard, so the owner of the house has to be the one who's guilty.
Guilty? I think the word is too strong. A suspect would be more appropriate. No trial needed? Hmm... The word "got killed" is very vague. There could be tons of reason how the situation occurs on the owner property -- when it happened, how it happened, any witnesses, etc. -- so there will be an investigation. Usually, as I have seen in the U.S., there would be a trial for this kind of cases when (and in most cases) the owner does not admit the crime and hire a lawyer. Your analogy is quite off.
In most cases the H1-Bs are coming from high-income backgrounds so they're really moving in a first-world circle of workers DEFEATING the point of the program.
If I may ask, what the "point" you are mentioning in your post? Even though those who changed their status from F1 (student visa) to H1B (working visa) may have money in the first place (or they won't be able to pay through schools), there are many who got it from outside of the country. Even though the expenses to get a job in the U.S. from the outside is expensive compared to their local, it is far less than the expenses to go through a school in the U.S. In other words, the indication that they come from a high-income background is likely false.
Also, the H1B is the only non-immigrant visa (via education and for those that are working for a small company) that allows the person to stay in the country long enough in order to apply for a green card. Unfortunately, many big corporations abuse the visa. They also do not sponsor those who work for them under H1B because it would cost them extra which around half of the process expenses must come out from the company ($2000+ per person if they do it themselves or $4000+ per person with a cheap attorney), takes quite some time (the process takes at least 1 year), and man power (corresponding with the attorney/USCIS, preparing documents, and filing).
PS: If you are talking about Asian Indian and main land Chinese (and I do not intend to be racist), from my personal experiences, they tend to come from a quite wealthy family and that may be the only group that you have been seeing. Though, there are many others who look for a better life. They borrow money to go through school here and hope that they will be able to pay back after they work here or go back to their own country and get a much better job to pay back. You would see some of them when you go through a school. That's another story...
I will have to partially disagree on what you are talking here. There are people who got a degree in Computer Science but simply by going through it. There are people who got the degree and actually learn from it. Theory and concept in high school cannot be compared with the college level. However, you must keep in mind that theory learned from college may not be appropriate in practice. Some theories/concepts are invalid for the current technology too. That said, experience alone is not going to take you far if you are not lucky enough.
I learned more about programming and networking from my professional career, than I did in 4 years at the university & 4 years in high school.
And all of those who taught you did not have a degree? Anyway, consider yourself lucky. There are not many people who could meet up with good teachers regardless in school or work place.
By the way, why many people still have a mind set that Computer Science is all about programming? To me, it is not about programming but rather deeper concept & theory and is for those who are capable to program. In 2 years in my Bachelor (I transferred from AS to get the Bachelor), I needed to use at least 7 different languages to complete assignments. Those professors do not really teach any computer language but concepts of the class material. Students are expected to learn the language themselves because it is just a tool to demonstrate that they understood the concepts.
...the other 1 million lame Java developers that suck. I've worked with plenty of H1b visa "engineers" over the years and haven't been very impressed by any of them.
This may or may not be true, but it is not related to the TFA. Judging H1B workers from your experience neither explain whether or not H1B workers are really skilful nor clarify the immigration reform. The judgement of quality is not up to the H1B workers, but it is from companies that hire them. In other words, a person cannot get a H1B visa without an employer.
One factor is the selection process that you may not be involved. How your company's HR (or whatever they have) do the selection. If they use a recruiting or consulting company to hire one, then another factor will be how the third party company select/train the worker. There have been known about "body shop" recruiting/consulting companies that exaggerate their people's resume in order to get much higher contract value. These companies have several techniques to fool their clients (employers). Often times, those who work with these (body shop) people would see the truth but may or may not be able to do anything.
One more factor involved how you evaluate yourself. Your statement tends to show that you evaluate yourself as either the norm or the elite, but yet you do not elaborate what "impression" you got by working with them. This will need a clarification.
Another factor is how others seeing you and their responses taint your opinion. You may or may not know and/or accept what others think about you. This may need to be off track before I come back to the point. One problem I am seeing in the U.S. is that it is very difficult to decipher the sincereness of others. I came from a country that you say "thank you" or "I am sorry" and you really mean it. But here, it is not always. I want to give you my real life examples. When I see someone coming behind me and I am going into/out a building, I always keep the door open and wait for the person to reach the door before I let go of it. The person says "Thank you" to me. Now, a few other times which are an opposite event. When I do not see/notice that there is someone right behind me and I am going into a building, I open the door and do not keep the door open. As a result, the door closes immediately right in front of the person behind me. The person catches up with me an yells at me that I am being rude. To me, if they "expect" others to be nice to them, how do I know that they sincerely thank me when I try to be nice to them? Because I meet their expectation, they say the word just to even it out?
Now back to the point being said about how others seeing you, whatever they said to you may taint your opinion about others (both those who said to you or interact with you). I said "taint" because I do not know whether the words really mean what they are. As a result, you may see others as not-so-good because some people tell you that you are the best, but the very same people may actually see you the same as not-so-good.
Therefore, your post (the quote) does not represent any information but rather a negative bias/opinion toward H1B workers. Also, judging H1B workers does not solve the immigration issue. If you are talking about the selection of H1B workers to be included in immigration reform, that would be a lot more useful.
Correct, H1B visa is not a green card. However, in order to get a green card, a person must retain a good legal status at all time while being in the U.S. -- since the person stepped on to the U.S. soil. Because the process is long and tedious, it seems that the only eligible legal status that can keep the person in the country long enough to get a green card is H1B. Many of those who hold H1B visa and have to go home because they are either not interested in staying or being forced to go home (not be qualified to apply for a green card).
Unlikely. Let say a person has a child at 18 and the child has another child at 18. Therefore, that's 36 years. Now, how old a person who is a mentor/manager in a company would be? If the person does not have a college degree, the person is likely to be older because of experience requirement. If the person has a college degree, the person is supposed to have been working for at least 3 years? The person must be either a genius or a child/grandchild of the company's owner to become a manager/mentor at age 22.
A big company that has HR may or may not hire older because many of them do not really understand the IT work. Their nature of work does not require them to understand any other job descriptions (even sometimes their own). A company with a good HR is rare, but it is still possible. I wish you a good luck.
What would be more interesting is you can prove the debts are not her own and pursue a successful libel case against them.
Yes you can, but that is not an easy case. Usually those who have this kind of issue do not have enough fund and/or knowledge to deal with the matter. If they do, they wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. As a result, the agencies get away easily.
I believe at least half of Australia continent is desert (in the middle of the continent). Not sure about the density of people living inside the area when it comes to compare with the U.S. inland area. So I guess it is not a good comparison in term of population distribution and land use.
Well, sorry for the misunderstanding. Often times, language is very ambiguous to me especially the one that is not my mother tongue. Thanks for the reply again.
I am not "criticising" grammar but attempt to follow what the 3rd sentence is. Could you please cool your head before comment? I am not a native English speaker, so I may not be "as smart as" you are.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about the amount inside "Cafeteria Plan" section on your W2? If so, the plan does not really mean "cafeteria" but it is under section 125 tax code...
It still doesn't make sense... If a "large passenger vehicle" never has passengers on at any time, why would the vehicle be bought in the first place? People buy "large passenger cars" on purpose. It is, however, very rare to buy them just to "show off." Besides, "vast majority" is still a lot more than 50% in total. The word "never" is too exaggerate to me still. If you said "most of the time," I would feel much more comfortable with it.
You are talking as if AI field is widely spread to general level in public. When I am talking about AI, I mean real AI, not a silly chat box (Siri-liked) crap, simple minded automation, or mined data analysis tools.
There is a possibility that the bubble will burst before the real AI technology arrives to general public, and the reason of the burst could easily be caused by the insanely growth of number of crappy apps. Good apps (with small number of developers) will stay, but most of app developers will be out of jobs.
The believe in limitation of hardware is a different point of view, but I still see that it is not going to stop the burst. Yes, higher capacity of hardware could open up new ways of apps, but at the same time it would encourage more crappy apps. The point of bubble burst is the quality of apps, not what usefulness (and not crappy) apps can do. /p.
I agreed for the point of charging him, but the sentence he got is outrageous especially considering his position. Thinking whatever decision he made he would be f***ed, he chose the way he believed it would be the least damage -- go to jail. Sadly, politic of law enforcement comes in play and cost him even longer jail time than those who actually did the illegal activities. I wish they could find a better way to use his craftsmanship in a legal way...
they'll notify you when someone is going to buy a domain that uses your trademark on one of these new vanity gTLDs and you'll have the chance to contest the purchase (ie, buy it yourself) or give up all future claims.
Yes, but you (owner of the trademark) still have to do the work. What they (ICANN) do is to watch if anyone else is going to buy similar domain to your trademark which is somewhat an extension to what they are doing. The trademark owner really has to do the work to stop/deter the purchase (owner of the intellectual property must enforce his/her own IP).
Also even though someone else has bought a domain name with your trademark and used it to make money, you could still sue for damages (if there is any) without needing to know it in advance. One problem I am seeing is that how would one determine whether the domain name bought by someone else is violating your trademark. From the USPTO ( http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp ), you may challenge those who use your trademark in the country where your trademark has been registered. If someone registered the domain name in a country where your trademark has not been registered but sells products (online) in the country your trade mark is registered, what can you do? I am not so sure you can really stop the domain name purchase this way...
In other words, they just want free money every year with their little afford to do the work for you. Is it really worth it?
I think in this case (and many other cases), the legislation includes false negative. You may need to compare the benefit and loss of the result to understand that "probably" or "maybe" is OK to be based on.
The benefit would be that accidents caused by distraction of the glass would be reduced (if at least some people follows the law). The loss (false negative) is that there are people, who would not be distracted by the glass, would not be allowed to use the glass. Now, from my opinion, the value of loss from accidents caused by the glass is more than the value of loss from not allowing responsible people to use the glass because the loss is involved both the one who is distracted and the innocents (people/properties) that are unlucky involved in the accident. It would be wise to close the barn door before you lose a horse.
Reading your answer makes me think a bit differently (to keep them away from public). It may sound like a movie plot. Do you think it is possible to revive some species from extinction and that could simultaneously revive some serious/unknown diseases with it? Or those revived species become a new host for some diseases that in turn mutate to different diseases that resist the current medication? And if it is and the diseases spread out into the wild (from whatever reason), would it really be worthwhile reviving the extinct species? I understand that the project is for good reasons. I am just a bit paranoid a bit because you only need one wacko to turn the good to bad. Even though It is extremely unlikely, never say it is impossible...
By the way, to clarify my own post. What my intention is to ask the poster to do a little more research before referring about something that is far from the fact. It could come back and bite him/her. Yes, a lot of things are much cheaper in China and/or India than in the U.S., but that does not mean "everything" is cheaper. That's a dangerous assumption.
I specifically quoted that from "China and India" and where did I imply about other countries?
can I buy a car directly from China or India? I want to pay exactly what they pay, no surcharges.
I suggest that you or anyone who lives in the U.S. wouldn't want to do this. Do you know how much does the same car model cost in those countries? You would be surprised because the price is not correlated to their cost of living...
It doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Who knows when Google actually "apply the rule" of dot & no dot to their web mail. My friend recently showed me his emails and some of those do not belong to him. He actually know that the person is living in another city and use the email to register for some clubs or certificates. Nothing illegal but it's been for years and still going on. So my assumption from this is that there are some people who have been left when Google has not applied this "dot" rule. These people still have their email address messed up and have no idea what they can do.
I think you don't get the point of the article. I believe the quoted paragraph below (from the article) is what the whole point of the article.
Given the data, they concluded that social scientists could not possibly have picked a worse population from which to draw broad generalizations. Researchers had been doing the equivalent of studying penguins while believing that they were learning insights applicable to all birds.
So it means that many social studies were done using only one kind of samples (westerners), but their analysis is used to represent the whole population (in the world). If a study is done using only sample from western regions, the study should not be used widely as the "base" of all humanities but the similar region/culture. That's all.
I live out here in the sticks. Damned near half the county uses boosters, because, well, we have to. Between the abundance of mountains and the twisty roads, it's a given that if you want a signal, you get a booster.
That's why you need to register your device to your provider.
Anyhow, I do not understand or like the new FCC rule. The reason "so these devices won’t cause interference to wireless networks" does not work for me. Yes, there are some who abuse the device, but they should not come out with this "general" rule that affects those who need it (such as you). They should do more investigation rather than make their job easier by setting up a new rule. Too lazy, I would think.
Someone got killed in a backyard, so the owner of the house has to be the one who's guilty.
Guilty? I think the word is too strong. A suspect would be more appropriate. No trial needed? Hmm... The word "got killed" is very vague. There could be tons of reason how the situation occurs on the owner property -- when it happened, how it happened, any witnesses, etc. -- so there will be an investigation. Usually, as I have seen in the U.S., there would be a trial for this kind of cases when (and in most cases) the owner does not admit the crime and hire a lawyer. Your analogy is quite off.
In most cases the H1-Bs are coming from high-income backgrounds so they're really moving in a first-world circle of workers DEFEATING the point of the program.
If I may ask, what the "point" you are mentioning in your post? Even though those who changed their status from F1 (student visa) to H1B (working visa) may have money in the first place (or they won't be able to pay through schools), there are many who got it from outside of the country. Even though the expenses to get a job in the U.S. from the outside is expensive compared to their local, it is far less than the expenses to go through a school in the U.S. In other words, the indication that they come from a high-income background is likely false.
Also, the H1B is the only non-immigrant visa (via education and for those that are working for a small company) that allows the person to stay in the country long enough in order to apply for a green card. Unfortunately, many big corporations abuse the visa. They also do not sponsor those who work for them under H1B because it would cost them extra which around half of the process expenses must come out from the company ($2000+ per person if they do it themselves or $4000+ per person with a cheap attorney), takes quite some time (the process takes at least 1 year), and man power (corresponding with the attorney/USCIS, preparing documents, and filing).
PS: If you are talking about Asian Indian and main land Chinese (and I do not intend to be racist), from my personal experiences, they tend to come from a quite wealthy family and that may be the only group that you have been seeing. Though, there are many others who look for a better life. They borrow money to go through school here and hope that they will be able to pay back after they work here or go back to their own country and get a much better job to pay back. You would see some of them when you go through a school. That's another story...
I will have to partially disagree on what you are talking here. There are people who got a degree in Computer Science but simply by going through it. There are people who got the degree and actually learn from it. Theory and concept in high school cannot be compared with the college level. However, you must keep in mind that theory learned from college may not be appropriate in practice. Some theories/concepts are invalid for the current technology too. That said, experience alone is not going to take you far if you are not lucky enough.
I learned more about programming and networking from my professional career, than I did in 4 years at the university & 4 years in high school.
And all of those who taught you did not have a degree? Anyway, consider yourself lucky. There are not many people who could meet up with good teachers regardless in school or work place.
By the way, why many people still have a mind set that Computer Science is all about programming? To me, it is not about programming but rather deeper concept & theory and is for those who are capable to program. In 2 years in my Bachelor (I transferred from AS to get the Bachelor), I needed to use at least 7 different languages to complete assignments. Those professors do not really teach any computer language but concepts of the class material. Students are expected to learn the language themselves because it is just a tool to demonstrate that they understood the concepts.
...the other 1 million lame Java developers that suck. I've worked with plenty of H1b visa "engineers" over the years and haven't been very impressed by any of them.
This may or may not be true, but it is not related to the TFA. Judging H1B workers from your experience neither explain whether or not H1B workers are really skilful nor clarify the immigration reform. The judgement of quality is not up to the H1B workers, but it is from companies that hire them. In other words, a person cannot get a H1B visa without an employer.
One factor is the selection process that you may not be involved. How your company's HR (or whatever they have) do the selection. If they use a recruiting or consulting company to hire one, then another factor will be how the third party company select/train the worker. There have been known about "body shop" recruiting/consulting companies that exaggerate their people's resume in order to get much higher contract value. These companies have several techniques to fool their clients (employers). Often times, those who work with these (body shop) people would see the truth but may or may not be able to do anything.
One more factor involved how you evaluate yourself. Your statement tends to show that you evaluate yourself as either the norm or the elite, but yet you do not elaborate what "impression" you got by working with them. This will need a clarification.
Another factor is how others seeing you and their responses taint your opinion. You may or may not know and/or accept what others think about you. This may need to be off track before I come back to the point. One problem I am seeing in the U.S. is that it is very difficult to decipher the sincereness of others. I came from a country that you say "thank you" or "I am sorry" and you really mean it. But here, it is not always. I want to give you my real life examples. When I see someone coming behind me and I am going into/out a building, I always keep the door open and wait for the person to reach the door before I let go of it. The person says "Thank you" to me. Now, a few other times which are an opposite event. When I do not see/notice that there is someone right behind me and I am going into a building, I open the door and do not keep the door open. As a result, the door closes immediately right in front of the person behind me. The person catches up with me an yells at me that I am being rude. To me, if they "expect" others to be nice to them, how do I know that they sincerely thank me when I try to be nice to them? Because I meet their expectation, they say the word just to even it out?
Now back to the point being said about how others seeing you, whatever they said to you may taint your opinion about others (both those who said to you or interact with you). I said "taint" because I do not know whether the words really mean what they are. As a result, you may see others as not-so-good because some people tell you that you are the best, but the very same people may actually see you the same as not-so-good.
Therefore, your post (the quote) does not represent any information but rather a negative bias/opinion toward H1B workers. Also, judging H1B workers does not solve the immigration issue. If you are talking about the selection of H1B workers to be included in immigration reform, that would be a lot more useful.
Correct, H1B visa is not a green card. However, in order to get a green card, a person must retain a good legal status at all time while being in the U.S. -- since the person stepped on to the U.S. soil. Because the process is long and tedious, it seems that the only eligible legal status that can keep the person in the country long enough to get a green card is H1B. Many of those who hold H1B visa and have to go home because they are either not interested in staying or being forced to go home (not be qualified to apply for a green card).
...by someone who could be your grandson).
Unlikely. Let say a person has a child at 18 and the child has another child at 18. Therefore, that's 36 years. Now, how old a person who is a mentor/manager in a company would be? If the person does not have a college degree, the person is likely to be older because of experience requirement. If the person has a college degree, the person is supposed to have been working for at least 3 years? The person must be either a genius or a child/grandchild of the company's owner to become a manager/mentor at age 22.
A big company that has HR may or may not hire older because many of them do not really understand the IT work. Their nature of work does not require them to understand any other job descriptions (even sometimes their own). A company with a good HR is rare, but it is still possible. I wish you a good luck.
What would be more interesting is you can prove the debts are not her own and pursue a successful libel case against them.
Yes you can, but that is not an easy case. Usually those who have this kind of issue do not have enough fund and/or knowledge to deal with the matter. If they do, they wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. As a result, the agencies get away easily.
I believe at least half of Australia continent is desert (in the middle of the continent). Not sure about the density of people living inside the area when it comes to compare with the U.S. inland area. So I guess it is not a good comparison in term of population distribution and land use.
Well, sorry for the misunderstanding. Often times, language is very ambiguous to me especially the one that is not my mother tongue. Thanks for the reply again.
I see. Then please reply under the post. Your reply is my post's child, so I would think that you replied to my post. Anyway, thanks for the reply.
Thank you for clarification. :)
I am not "criticising" grammar but attempt to follow what the 3rd sentence is. Could you please cool your head before comment? I am not a native English speaker, so I may not be "as smart as" you are.